/p/ - Photography » Thread #299885

[24 / 0 / ?]

sage

sage Tue 25 Nov 2008 01:57:00 No.299885 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Sage

Gear thread GO!

Hey soooo I want to grab me a telephoto for my 40D in the next few days.

I was thinking about the 70-200 f4L for it's cheapness and sharpness, but when searching craigslist i found this :

http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/pho/922217044.html

a lens I was not aware of, it's non IS but 2.8 and BLACK which is nice, as I don't always want to look like a hueg canonfag. Also just to confirm, the 70-200 f4 non IS is sharper than the IS, correct? or other way around?

tl;dr, should I

A.Spend ~$500 on a 70-200 f4?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:00:00 No.299887 Report

Quoted By: >>299896

This page gives you the details, IN DEPTH, I tell you.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/index.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:03:00 No.299890 Report

Quoted By: >>299894

Does your camera have a full frame sensor or not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:05:00 No.299891 Report

Quoted By: >>299895 >>299923

there's no reason to pay $850 for the 80-200 2.8 when a brand new 70-200 2.8 is $1000, so unless you REALLY need that $150, then avoid it. the new 70-200s are better in every way

for sharpness, it goes f/4 IS > f/2.8 > f/2.8 IS > f/4

and lastly, yes spend the extra money for the f/4 IS

sage

sage Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:10:00 No.299894 Report

Quoted By:

sage

>>299890
>Hey soooo I want to grab me a telephoto for my 40D

ha yeah so 70-200 f4 IS ftw

THX!

Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM

Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:11:00 No.299895 Report

Quoted By:

>>299891
Is correct.

I could pick up a 3-month-old-barely-touched F4IS for $850 CND right now, but I'm hoping to grab one for a couple hundred less. In most peoples' situations, you should be able to grab an F4IS for <$1k.

Unless you _need_ the 2.8, the F4IS is positively brilliant.

sage

sage Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:12:00 No.299896 Report

Quoted By:

sage

>>299887

bookmarked!
read there that the 80-200 doesn't even except the tele-converters if I were to go down that road in the future, that's good to know. Thanks guys.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:18:00 No.299900 Report

Quoted By:

The 80-200 is discontinued and I believe is not USM. I'd say go for the 70-200.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 02:45:00 No.299911 Report

Quoted By:

>> so maybe I am way off, is 70-200mm a stupid range to be looking at anyways, would I be better off with something like 100-400 f4.5-5.6

70-200 is a portrait telephoto and short sports telephoto

a 100-400 is a telephoto superzoom

depends on what you want to shoot

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:04:00 No.299923 Report

Quoted By: >>299926 >>299929 >>299932

>>299891
>for sharpness, it goes f/4 IS > f/2.8 > f/2.8 IS > f/4

you sure about that? I thought the f/4 non is is still a tack sharper than both 2.8.
which is negligible though because it's almost as sharp and goes down to 2.8 without losing much of that sharpness.

but a 2.8 would be too heavy for me, I wanted to get the f/4 IS, but money money money ._.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:05:00 No.299925 Report

Quoted By: >>299932

>as I don't always want to look like a hueg canonfag

Paint/tape/etc. that shit.

>Also just to confirm, the 70-200 f4 non IS is sharper than the IS, correct?

Wrong question, two ways. Sharpness isn't the only thing in a lens's output to be concerned with, but the overall behavior of it: consistency across the frame, behavior at different apertures, bokeh, the way it's sharp (or not), flare characteristics, overall rendering, how well it's corrected for distortion and different aberrations and how it does those corrections, etc. Look at samples then pick the one you like. They're all probably pretty similar, though, since they're all Canon L tele zooms and probably have designs based on each other to some extent.

Second, unless you plan on always using this on a tripod or only at insanely fast shutter speeds, chances are in terms of technical sharpness the IS lens would be better in practice even if the non-IS does better on bench tests.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:07:00 No.299926 Report

Quoted By: >>301471

>>299923
>I wanted to get the f/4 IS, but money money money ._.

You could always try buying it used to save some, though of course the non-IS would be even cheaper used.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:10:00 No.299929 Report

Quoted By: >>299931

>>299923

yeah, i'm sure

f/4 IS > f/2.8 > f/2.8 IS > f/4

11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh111Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:24 17:08:22Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width854Image Height15701

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:12:00 No.299931 Report

Quoted By:

>>299929
what do the boxes mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:13:00 No.299932 Report

Quoted By: >>299933

>>299923
F4 nonIS is _slightly_ sharper than the 2.8s. F4IS is sharper than the 3 others.

>>299925
Agreed. F4IS is the sharpest of the 4.
And yeah, the IS makes enough of a difference that even if the non-IS was sharper (which it's not), in practice the IS would work out sharper in most images.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:15:00 No.299933 Report

Quoted By:

>>299932F4 nonIS is _slightly_ sharper than the 2.8s.

my chart proves you wrong

WROOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!!!

11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS Windows111Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:07:08 00:07:22Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width846Image Height3521

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:32:00 No.299948 Report

Quoted By:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:34:00 No.299949 Report

Quoted By: >>299952

not trying to troll but i'd rather have 7 different standard zooms than 4 telephotos that are exactly the same, just saying

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:46:00 No.299952 Report

Quoted By:

>>299949
Yeah, it just happens to be a good telephoto range. It's not Canon's only standard tele zoom anyways, but nice try.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 03:52:00 No.299956 Report

Quoted By: >>299987 >>300252

i think you misunderstood me there

i always keep reading how it's great that Canon offers 4 "different" 70-200 and the same people laughing at Nikon having 7 different standard zooms

so i said, i would much rather have 7 completely different standard zooms (18-55 VR, 17-55, 16-85 VR, 18-70, 18-105 VR, 18-135, 18-200 VR) than 4 exactly the same telephotos

just saying

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 04:30:00 No.299987 Report

Quoted By:

>>299956
They're both excessive, but the Canon four 70-200s less so.

A system only needs two standard zooms: a fast one and a compact, slower and cheaper one. Nikon's DX has five absolutely excess lenses over and above that, the two useful ones being the 17-55 and 18-55 VR. The 18-200 would be useful in rare situations, but it's not any more useful than the 18-55 VR in normal use.

Tele zooms also need a fast and a slower compact version; for most people the non-L ones will do for the compact versions, but they're not weatherproofed, which still justifies the f/4Ls. (Honestly all lenses should be weatherproofed; there's no point in not doing it except the CEO of Canikon getting a $10 Million bonus instead of $8 million.) The Canon 70-200 line-up also is excessive; they should just drop the two non-IS versions. But that's half, as opposed to 5/7s, or 4/7s if you're going to push it with the 18-200, of the lineup that's wasted. There's also a legitimate rationale for keeping the f/4 non-IS: economics, if people need a weatherproofed tele zoom but they're broke then it's there and relatively cheap compared to the next-up option.

Both companies have some crazy excess in their overall tele zoom line-up, though.

ANTMY !qDIAcd3vJM

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

ANTMY !qDIAcd3vJM Tue 25 Nov 2008 08:43:00 No.300223 Report

Quoted By:

z0mg, liek, we both have 40D's and canon 70 - 200mm f/4 L's

well, you dont yet, but you should get it.
its worth it.

11Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8Serial Number1420715782111Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:24 10:42:49Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias-1.7 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeProgramFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationLowContrastLowShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeManualDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation1Sensor ISO Speed224Color Matrix1291

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Nov 2008 09:25:00 No.300252 Report

Quoted By:

>>299956

wow.. canon has the same or very similar to most if not all of those.. so what exactly are you on about?

the 17-55 is the only really good on in your list and canons swamps it..

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 06:41:00 No.301471 Report

Quoted By:

>>299926

Serously?

Didn't think of that..

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

sage